One of the more difficult aspects of my job is explaining the different between a people (political) problem, and a legal problem.
The problem is that the Law has to deal in Absolutes, and people ain't. Absolutes, we're a miasma of grey areas, trying to boil down complex combinations of emotions into "Truth." And failing, all the time.
So, for an even more obvious example, we have Murder, and Intent. The legal definition of A Felony Murder (A potentially Capital Offense) is whether they intended to kill, with malice aforethought. If Dick Cheney had killed that guy, but then argued that he didn't intend to kill him, on the grounds of being a weapons expert, with a 28 gauge full of bird shot. He has the Affirmative defense that "If I wanted to kill him, I would have used a deer slug."
So, it's Assault with a Deadly Weapon, instead of Attempted Murder. (If he was actually charged.) The legal difference between Execution, Life Imprisonment, or let go without so much as a slap on the wrist. And this is with a case as cut an dried as "Did he kill him? Did he plan to kill him? Did he intend to kill him when he invited him out hunting, and only loaded a 28 gauge with birdshot?"
Then, we get down to "Lesser crimes" like denying a person of education based on subconscious institutional prejudice. Which isn't againts the law, but partially, because it's extremely difficult to Prove, Legally. "I didn't intend to subconsciously deny her because she was a mixed race transgender lesbian, but I got this here bribe to admit this bright young student, with better test scores, and a promising future that looks good on our recruitment poster, and she's a cheerleader!"
Exhibit A is a picture of her smiling in uniform with her boyfriend, and 2 misfits that just don't get it.
The bribery is reasonably easy to prove.